Dealership Refusing to give me my deposit

poppasmurf_bewdley

bod1467 wrote: »

You have a strange interpretation of contract law. I think most of the rest of us live in the real world.

I am sure the OP will find out who is right and who is wrong when he comes to try and get his deposit back. Unfortunately for him.

bod1467

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I am sure the OP will find out who is right and who is wrong when he comes to try and get his deposit back. Unfortunately for him.

Not at all. The OP may come across the dealer's belief that he is entitled to retain everything. (Or the dealer's bluff that he is). But if/when an LBA/court action is initiated (i.e. his bluff is called) the dealer will soon realise that he (thus you) is wrong.

bod1467

You may find this enlightening.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/42873192#Comment_42873192

poppasmurf_bewdley

Or you could even try this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/you-and-your-rights-how-not-to-lose-a-deposit-1599561.html

or

http://www.consumeradvice.net/pages/faq.htm

or

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/your-right-cancel

unholyangel

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Or you could even try this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/you-and-your-rights-how-not-to-lose-a-deposit-1599561.html

or

http://www.consumeradvice.net/pages/faq.htm

or

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/your-right-cancel

I see your 3 (not sure about the reliability of the first two, the last only says you may lose your deposit) and raise you:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

Particularly these sections:

4.3 Where customers cancel without any such justification, and the supplier
suffers loss as a result, they cannot expect a full refund of all
prepayments17. But a term under which they always lose everything they
have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses caused by the cancellation, is at clear risk of being considered an unfair
penalty – see Group 5.

4.5 A way to improve the fairness of such a term is to ensure that it does not
go beyond the ordinary legal position. Where cancellation is the fault of the
consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of
prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover his net costs
or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default.18 There is no
entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example,
finding another customer.

And also:

5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A
requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable
pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive
penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the
extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. Other types
of disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group 18(c).

5.3 Other kinds of penal provisions which may be unfair are damages and costs
clauses saying that the supplier can:
• claim all his costs and expenses, not just his net costs
• claim both his costs and his loss of profit where this would lead to
being compensated twice over for the same loss
• claim his legal costs on an 'indemnity' basis that is, all costs, not just
costs reasonably incurred. The words 'indemnity' and 'indemnify' are
also objectionable as legal jargon – see below, Part IV, Group 19(b).
5.4 Potentially excessive penalties. A penalty that states a fixed or minimum
sum, to be paid in all cases, will be open to challenge if the sum could be
too high in some cases.

5.6 Cancellation penalties and charges. A term which says, or is calculated to
suggest, that inflated sums could be claimed if the consumer cancels the
contract is likely to be challenged as unfair. For example, a penalty for
wrongful cancellation that requires payment of the whole contract price, or
a large part of it,20 is likely to be unfair if in some cases the supplier could
reasonably reduce ('mitigate') his loss. If, for example, he could find
another customer, the law would allow him to claim no more than the likely
costs of doing so, together with any difference between the original price
and the re-sale price.

5.7 There is unlikely to be any objection to terms which fairly reflect, in plain
language, the ordinary legal position – that is:
• requiring the consumer to pay a stated sum which represents a real and
fair pre-estimate of the costs or loss of profit the supplier is likely to
suffer, or
• stating simply that the consumer can be expected to pay reasonable
compensation, or compensation according to law.
Note, however, that a term which purports to reflect the law on damages is
open to challenge if it is potentially misleading.

However, supplier has a chance to mitigate his loss by postponing the contract till october.

Also to point out if particulars havent been discussed, there may be no binding contract in place as of yet, in which case OP would be entitled to a full refund.